From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9352EBC6B for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 21:31:47 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ah4FAMpsg0fUnw6Eg2dsb2JhbACCNY1mAQEBCAIIIgeZAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.24,259,1196636400"; d="scan'208";a="5849530" Received: from pih-relay05.plus.net ([212.159.14.132]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2008 21:31:47 +0100 Received: from [80.229.56.224] (helo=beast.local) by pih-relay05.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1JCL6w-0005eN-Dd for caml-list@yquem.inria.fr; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:31:46 +0000 From: Jon Harrop Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Parallelism with threads Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 20:23:47 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200801081456.49677.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <4d5f7bec0801081131u2ebfae8aia0b13564d13b03c6@mail.gmail.com> <4783D640.7080800@janestcapital.com> In-Reply-To: <4783D640.7080800@janestcapital.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200801082023.47635.jon@ffconsultancy.com> X-Spam: no; 0.00; parallelism:01 ocaml:01 runtimes:01 sockets:01 erlang:01 model:01 frog:98 threads:01 threads:01 wrote:01 heap:01 heap:01 caml-list:01 typed:04 mpi:04 On Tuesday 08 January 2008 20:00:00 Brian Hurt wrote: > Actually, something that might be nice to see, now that the flat page > table has been replaced with a heap that can handle disjoint heap > spaces, is to allow multiple different Ocaml runtimes to be running in > seperate threads in the same process. > The heaps wouldn't be able to see each other, but they'd be able to > communicate via light weight (and strongly typed) message passing, and > you wouldn't have to dink around with sockets, pipes, MPI, or simiar > "heavy weight" solutions, so it'd be simpler, and possibly faster. This > is not unlike the Erlang model, in fact. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm interested in! -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?e